Opinion ID: 2464465
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Applicability of the PKPA and Colorado Law to Resolve This Dispute

Text: Whether a trial court has jurisdiction over a child custody proceeding presents a question of law, which we review de novo. In re Marriage of Pritchett, 80 P.3d 918, 920 (Colo.App.2003). Because inconsistent and conflicting state laws produced widespread jurisdictional deadlocks and facilitated an epidemic of interstate parental kidnapping, Congress enacted the PKPA, which established a national standard for the resolution of interstate child custody jurisdictional disputes. Pub.L. No. 96-611 § 7(a); see Thompson v. Thompson, 484 U.S. 174, 180, 108 S.Ct. 513, 98 L.Ed.2d 512 (1988). By enacting the PKPA as an addendum to the full faith and credit statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, Congress signaled that its chief aim in enacting the PKPA was to extend the requirements of the Full Faith and Credit Clause to custody determinations. Thompson, 484 U.S. at 183, 108 S.Ct. 513; see also A.J.C., 88 P.3d at 611 ([T]he [PKPA] affirmatively implemented full faith and credit requirements applicable to all custody determinations.). Like the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the PKPA prescribes a rule by which courts, Federal and State, are to be guided when a question arises in the progress of a pending suit as to the faith and credit to be given by the court to the . . . judicial proceedings of [another] State. Thompson, 484 U.S. at 182-83, 108 S.Ct. 513 (citation omitted). Therefore, the PKPA, by virtue of full faith and credit, furnish[es] a rule of decision for [state and federal] courts to use in adjudicating custody disputes and, hence, dictates the outcome of jurisdictional conflicts between state courts in child custody determinations. Id. at 183, 108 S.Ct. 513. The PKPA acts as a rule of determination in interstate custody disputes by impos[ing] a duty on the States to enforce a child custody determination entered by a court of a sister State if the determination is consistent with the provisions of the Act. Id. at 175-76, 108 S.Ct. 513. The PKPA mandates that when a state enters an initial custody determination, a second state must enforce that determination provided that the state made the determination in compliance with the PKPA. Id.; 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(a). Section 1738A(a) states: The appropriate authorities of every State shall enforce according to its terms, and shall not modify except as provided in [this Act], any custody determination . . . made consistently with the provisions of this section by a court of another State. In Thompson, the United States Supreme Court interpreted this provision to mandate that [o]nce a State exercises jurisdiction consistently with the provisions of the [PKPA], no other State may exercise concurrent jurisdiction over the custody dispute . . . and all States must accord full faith and credit to the first State's ensuing custody decree. 484 U.S. at 177, 108 S.Ct. 513 (emphasis added). Conversely, if a state court's custody determination fails to conform to the PKPA's requirements, then the custody determination is not entitled to full faith and credit enforcement in another state. See id. at 176-77, 108 S.Ct. 513. Both the legislative scheme of the PKPA and Thompson confirm this conclusion. First, the PKPA specifically conditions interstate enforcement of a custody determination on the determination having been  made consistently with the provisions of [the PKPA] by a court of another State. 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(a) (emphasis added); see also id. at (c)-(e), (g). Subsections (c) through (e) and (g) of the PKPA set out the requirements a state must comply with in order to make a custody determination consistent with the PKPA. These subsections provide in relevant part: (c) A child custody . . . determination made by a court of a State is consistent with the provisions of this section only if  . . . . (d) The jurisdiction of a court of a State which has made a child custody . . . determination consistently with the provisions of this section continues as long as the requirement of subsection (c)(1) of this section continues to be met and such State remains the residence of the child or of any contestant. (e) Before a child custody . . . determination is made, reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard shall be given to the contestants. . . . . . . . (g) A court of a State shall not exercise jurisdiction in any proceeding for a custody. . . determination commenced during the pendency of a proceeding in a court of another State where such court of that other State is exercising jurisdiction consistently with the provisions of this section to make a custody . . . determination. 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(c)-(e), (g) (emphasis added). By using mandatory language to set out its enforcement and jurisdictional requirements, the PKPA requires full compliance with its provisions and makes no concessions for substantial or partial compliance. See id. at (a), (c)-(e), (g) (using mandatory, rather than permissive, language). Second, in Thompson, the Supreme Court stressed that [t]he sponsors and supporters of the [PKPA] continually indicated that the purpose of the PKPA was to provide for nationwide enforcement of custody orders made in accordance with [its terms].  484 U.S. at 181, 108 S.Ct. 513 (emphasis added); accord A.J.C., 88 P.3d at 611; Esser v. Roach, 829 F.Supp. 171, 176 (E.D.Va.1993) (deciding that [t]he PKPA preempts state law to the extent that only those foreign custody decrees made consistently with the provisions of the PKPA' shall have the same effect and enforceability as domestic custody determinations). Therefore, the fact that the PKPA and Thompson strictly limit full faith and credit enforcement to determinations made in compliance with the terms of the PKPA leads us to conclude that, if a state court's custody determination is not made consistently with the PKPA, then the custody determination is not entitled to full faith and credit enforcement. Colorado statutes and case law incorporate the requirements of the PKPA. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(c)-(d), (h) (rules for initial jurisdiction, continuing jurisdiction, and jurisdiction to modify); §§ 14-13-201 to -203, C.R.S. (2010) (same); A.J.C., 88 P.3d at 611 (recognizing that the PKPA controls whether Colorado must enforce another state's child custody determination). In 2000, the Colorado General Assembly adopted the provisions of and comments to the UCCJEA. See § 14-13-101, C.R.S.; A.J.C., 88 P.3d at 608. [1] The UCCJEA is a uniform state law which was promulgated after the PKPA and intended to harmonize state law with the provisions of the PKPA. Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, Prefatory Note (Nat'l Conference of Comm'rs on Unif. State Laws 1997) (stating that the UCCJEA revises the law on child custody jurisdiction in light of [the PKPA] and explaining how the UCCJEA incorporates the PKPA's requirements). Because Colorado enacted the UCCJEA, its statutes regarding jurisdiction over child custody disputes and enforcement of foreign custody decrees are substantively identical to the PKPA. Compare 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(c)-(d), (h) (rules for initial jurisdiction, continuing jurisdiction, and jurisdiction to modify), with §§ 14-13-201 to -203, C.R.S. (same). As relevant to whether Colorado has jurisdiction to enter an initial custody determination, section 14-13-201, C.R.S. provides the same bases to establish initial jurisdiction as does the PKPA, as relevant here: (1) home state and (2) significant connection. Likewise, both the PKPA and section 14-13-201, C.R.S. prioritize home state jurisdiction over significant connection jurisdiction. Subsection (c) of the PKPA provides in relevant part: (c) A child custody . . . determination made by a court of a State is consistent with the provisions of this section only if  (1) such court has jurisdiction under the law of such State; and (2) one of the following conditions is met: (A) such State (i) is the home State of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or (ii) had been the child's home State within six months before the date of the commencement of the proceeding. . . and a contestant continues to live in such State; (B) (i) it appears that no other State would have jurisdiction under subparagraph (A), and (ii) it is in the best interest of the child that a court of such State assume jurisdiction because (I) the child and his parents, or the child and at least one contestant, have a significant connection with such State other than mere physical presence in such State, and (II) there is available in such State substantial evidence concerning the child's present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships; . . . . (D) (i) it appears that no other State would have jurisdiction under subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (E), or another State has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that the State whose jurisdiction is in issue is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody . . . of the child, and (ii) it is in the best interest of the child that such court assume jurisdiction. (Emphasis added). Similarly, section 14-13-201, C.R.S. provides in relevant part: (1) Except as otherwise provided in section 14-13-204 [emergency jurisdiction], a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial child-custody determination only if: (a) This state is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or was the home state of the child within six months before the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this state but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this state; (b) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under a provision of law adopted by that state that is in substantial conformity with paragraph (a) of this subsection (1), or a court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum under a provision of law adopted by that state that is in substantial conformity with section 14-13-207 or XX-XX-XXX, and: (I) The child and the child's parents, or the child and at least one parent or a person acting as a parent, have a significant connection with this state other than mere physical presence; and (II) Substantial evidence is available in this state concerning the child's care, protection, training, and personal relationships; (Emphasis added). The official comment to section 14-13-201, C.R.S. reinforces that the PKPA and the UCCJEA as enacted by Colorado are substantively the same by stating that the UCCJEA prioritizes home state jurisdiction in the same manner as the PKPA thereby eliminating any potential conflict between the two acts. Regarding whether Colorado must enforce a custody determination rendered by a another state, Colorado statutes mandate that a Colorado court is obligated to enforce the child custody determination of another state when it determines that the sister state made the determination in substantial conformity with or under factual circumstances satisfying the jurisdictional requirements of the UCCJEA. § 14-13-303(1), C.R.S. (2010). Section 14-13-303(1), C.R.S. states: A court of this state shall recognize and enforce a child-custody determination of a court of another state if the latter court exercised jurisdiction in substantial conformity with this article or the determination was made under factual circumstances meeting the jurisdictional standards of this article. The official comment to section 14-13-303, C.R.S. clarifies that this section now make[s Colorado's] duty to enforce . . . a child custody determination of another State consistent with the enforcement . . . provisions of the PKPA. Likewise, in A.J.C., this court recognized that the PKPA controls whether Colorado must enforce another state's child custody determination. 88 P.3d at 611. We concluded that, because the PKPA imposes a rule of determination in interstate jurisdictional child custody disputes, when another state has already entered a child custody determination, we inquire . . . whether the first-in time court's exercise of jurisdiction was in accordance with the PKPA. Id. Because Colorado statutes and case law incorporate the requirements of the PKPA, if a sister state exercised jurisdiction in accordance with the PKPA, then its exercise of jurisdiction would necessarily be in substantial conformity with Colorado law. Accordingly, we now consider whether the Nebraska court's exercise of jurisdiction was in accordance with the PKPA such that Colorado must recognize and enforce the Nebraska custody determination.