Opinion ID: 3159727
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inapplicability of Other Legal Authorities

Text: [¶10] During the course of the case, Seekins cited to several additional sources of law in support of his contention that the District Court had jurisdiction to determine parental rights and responsibilities for the child. The federal authorities that Seekins cited do not confer jurisdiction on the Maine District Court and are inapplicable. The Hague Convention is inapplicable because the removal or the retention of a child is wrongful only if “it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person . . . under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention,” Hague Convention art. 3(a), opened for signature Oct. 25, 1980, T.I.A.S. No. 11,670, 1343 U.N.T.S. 89, reprinted in 51 Fed. Reg. 10494 (Mar. 26, 1986) (emphasis added), and 18 U.S.C.S. § 1204, an international parental kidnapping statute, simply does not apply on these facts. [¶11] The Maine sources cited by Seekins also fail to establish a basis for jurisdiction. The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act does not govern child custody and contact and does not provide a basis for jurisdiction because the child 7 was not conceived in Maine, the mother was not served in Maine and did not consent to jurisdiction in Maine, and neither the mother nor the child ever resided in Maine. See 19-A M.R.S. § 2961(1). Title 22 is inapplicable because no petition for a child protection order has been, or appropriately could be, filed in this title 19-A action. See 22 M.R.S. § 4032 (2014). Finally, whether or not Seekins and Hamm originally agreed to bring the child to reside in Maine, that did not occur, and the parties to a court case may not, even by mutual consent or agreement, confer jurisdiction on the court. See Kliman v. Dubuc, 134 Me. 112, 114, 182 A. 160 (1936).