Opinion ID: 1754583
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Exclusive and Continuing Jurisdiction

Text: Statutory interpretation is a matter of law, in connection with which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent, correct conclusion irrespective of the determination made by the court below. Troshynski v. Nebraska State Bd. of Pub. Accountancy, 270 Neb. 347, 701 N.W.2d 379 (2005). The first issue presented is whether the district court's exclusive and continuing jurisdiction of this matter was lost under § 43-1239(a). Section 43-1239(a) provides the rules for continuing jurisdiction, an issue which was not specifically addressed in the UCCJA. See Unif. Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (1997), § 202, comment, 9 U.L.A. 674 (1999). Section 43-1239(a) provides: Except as otherwise provided in section 43-1241 [providing temporary emergency jurisdiction in cases of abandonment or abuse], a court of this state which has made a child custody determination consistent with section 43-1238 or 43-1240 has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the determination until: (1) a court of this state determines that neither the child, nor the child and one parent, nor the child and a person acting as a parent have a significant connection with this state and that substantial evidence is no longer available in this state concerning the child's care, protection, training, and personal relationships; or (2) a court of this state or a court of another state determines that the child, the child's parents, and any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in this state. The district court maintained exclusive jurisdiction under § 43-1239. This jurisdiction would continue unless the district court determined that neither the children, nor the children and one parent, nor the children and a person acting as a parent had a significant connection with this state and that substantial evidence was no longer available in this state concerning the children's care, protection, training, and personal relationships. The California Court of Appeal has observed the following concerning the California statute that is substantially equivalent to § 43-1239: Professor Robert G. Spector, the reporter for the committee which drafted the new uniform act, explained the intended application of [this section of the UCCJEA]: So long as one parent, or person acting as a parent, remains in the state that made the original custody determination, only that state can determine when the relationship between the child and the left-behind parent has deteriorated sufficiently so that jurisdiction is lost.  (Spector, Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (with Prefatory Note and Comments) (1998) 32 Family L.Q. 301, 340, fn. 81, italics added.) . . . If the remaining parent continues to assert and exercise his visitation rights, then the parent-child relationship has not deteriorated sufficiently to terminate jurisdiction. Grahm v. Superior Court, 132 Cal. App. 4th 1193, 1198-99, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 270, 274 (2005). Both parties have conceded that the district court had exclusive and continuing jurisdiction under § 43-1239. Despite the parties' belief that the district court did not lose its jurisdiction under § 43-1239, the court explained its decision to relinquish jurisdiction in the following manner: In granting [Jill's] Petition to Register the Decree [in Maryland], the Maryland Court specifically determined that [Jill] and the children reside in that state and it is the more appropriate and convenient forum for determining child custody issues, as outlined in § 43-1239[(a)](2). As such, this Court can and should relinquish its continuing and exclusive jurisdiction under [§ 43-1239(a)(1)] as requested by [Jill] in her Motion to Release Case and Transfer Jurisdiction. This will accomplish the moving of all matters with respect to these children and their best interests to the State in which they and one parent reside. The district court's reading and application of § 43-1239 were in error. The district court found that the Maryland court had determined that Jill and the children resided in Maryland and that Maryland was the more appropriate and convenient forum. Although the district court cited § 43-1239(a)(2), neither the convenience nor the appropriateness of the forum is a factor to be considered under that statute. Exclusive and continuing jurisdiction could be lost only if the children, Jill, and Robert no longer resided in the state. See § 43-1239(a)(2). The district court erred in making such a determination because Robert continued to reside in Nebraska. [6] The district court also erred in relying on the Maryland court's determination that it was the more appropriate and convenient forum. Pursuant to § 43-1239(a)(1), whether a court's exclusive and continuing jurisdiction has been lost is a determination to be made by a court of this state. Moreover, such determination must be based upon a Nebraska court's finding that neither the child, nor the child and one parent . . . have a significant connection with this state and that substantial evidence is no longer available in this state concerning the child's care, protection, training, and personal relationships. (Emphasis supplied.) See § 43-1239(a)(1). The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws explained jurisdiction pursuant to this section of the UCCJEA in the following manner: In other words, even if the child has acquired a new home State, the original decree State retains exclusive, continuing jurisdiction, so long as the general requisites of the substantial connection jurisdiction provisions of [§ 43-1239(a)(1)] are met. If the relationship between the child and the person remaining in the State with exclusive, continuing jurisdiction becomes so attenuated that the court could no longer find significant connections and substantial evidence, jurisdiction would no longer exist. Unif. Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (1997), § 202, comment, 9 U.L.A. 674 (1999). The district court made no determination whether the children and one parent maintained a significant connection to this state or whether substantial evidence was available in this state. See § 43-1239(a)(1). Therefore, we conclude that the district court's exclusive and continuing jurisdiction was not lost under § 43-1239.