Opinion ID: 1945864
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Without Emergency Jurisdiction, the Family Court Exceeded its Authority in Exercising Jurisdiction

Text: In the absence of factors justifying the continuation of emergency jurisdiction, the Family Court should have declined jurisdiction in this case because a child-custody proceeding already was pending in North Carolina when Beauregard filed her complaint in Rhode Island. See § 15-14-7(a) (Simultaneous proceedings in other states); Jordan, 586 A.2d at 1084-85. [9] Further, the continuing jurisdiction of a sister state is not affected by the child's residence in another state for six months or more. Trader, 630 A.2d at 637. At the time Beauregard filed her complaint in Rhode Island, a child-custody proceeding was pending in North Carolina because she had filed her complaint for divorce and child custody there. See § 15-14-3(3) (defining custody proceeding to include an action for divorce where a custody determination is one of the issues). It should have been clear to the Family Court that North Carolina was acting in accordance with the UCCJA because it was the home state of the children at the time Beauregard filed for divorce and no other state had jurisdiction at the time. Therefore, after the magistrate learned of the North Carolina proceeding and because he was armed with enough information to determine that North Carolina properly had exercised jurisdiction, and also that that state had not stayed or terminated its jurisdiction, the court should not have exercised jurisdiction. To comply with the dictates of the UCCJA, the court should have stayed the proceedings in connection with Beauregard's complaint and communicated with the court in North Carolina to the end that the issue may be litigated in the more appropriate forum. Section 15-14-7(c).