Opinion ID: 1736431
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: did the trial court lack subject matter jurisdiction?

Text: Having, as above, determined that the UCCJA is applicable in the instant case, we next turn our attention to the subject matter jurisdiction of the lower court, which must be determined pursuant to the following UCCJA provisions: (1) A court of this state which is competent to decide child custody matters has jurisdiction to make a child custody determination by initial or modification decree if: (a) This state (i) is the home of the child at the time of commencement of the proceeding, or (ii) had been the child's home state within six (6) months before commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this state because of his removal or retention by a person claiming his custody or for other reasons, and a parent or person acting as parent continues to live in this state; or (b) It is in the best interest of the child that a court of this state assume jurisdiction because (i) the child and his parents, or the child and at least one (1) contestant, have a significant connection with the state, and (iii) there is available in this state substantial evidence concerning the child's present or future care, protection, training and personal relationships; or (c) The child is physically present in this state and (i) the child has been abandoned, or (ii) it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because he has been subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse or is otherwise neglected or dependent; or (d)(i) It appears that no other state would have jurisdiction under prerequisites substantially in accordance with paragraphs (a), (b) or (c), or another state has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child, and (ii) it is in the best interest of the child that this court assume jurisdiction. (2) Except under paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (1) of this section, physical presence in this state of the child, or of the child and one of the contestants, is not alone sufficient to confer jurisdiction on a court of this state to make a child custody determination. (3) Physical presence of the child, while desirable, is not a prerequisite for jurisdiction to determine his custody. (emphasis added) Miss. Code Ann. § 93-23-5 (Supp. 1987). As previously stated, the trial court, believing the UCCJA to be inapplicable, failed to make the findings of fact necessary to decide whether jurisdiction existed under the Act. Therefore, this Court could not determine the jurisdictional question without sitting as a fact-finder, which this Court has repeatedly stated it will not do. See, e.g., Rice Researchers, Inc. v. Hiter, 512 So.2d 1259 (Miss. 1987). In regard to the necessity that the trial court make the appropriate findings of fact, we particularly note that § 93-23-5(1)(d) provides, in part, that Mississippi has jurisdiction if another state declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that Mississippi is the more appropriate forum and it is in the best interest of the child for Mississippi to exercise jurisdiction. The trial judge in the instant case contacted the Montana judge in whose court Roger's action was pending, and stated the following in his order: That upon request of the Honorable J. Stephen Wright ... this court has communicated with [the Montana judge, who] stated ... that he was inclined to agree with [the Copiah County Court]. [The Montana judge] did not voice any objection to this court's retention of jurisdiction. This statement lacks the necessary clarity upon which this Court could determine whether the Montana court declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that Mississippi was the more appropriate forum. The record does not contain any facts pertaining to the determination made by the Montana court in the parties divorce action. Attached to a motion made by appellee to dismiss this appeal as moot (which this Court denied), is a copy of the Montana Divorce Decree, which fails to make any provision for custody of the children. But, as this decree was not made a part of the record, we will not consider it. Willenbrock v. Brown, 239 So.2d 922 (Miss. 1970). Again, since the lower court did not apply the UCCJA, it never made the necessary fact-finding on the Montana court's relinquishment of jurisdiction. In a similar context, another provision of the UCCJA states that: A court of this state shall not exercise its jurisdiction under this act if at the time of filing the petition a proceeding concerning the custody of the child was pending in a court of another state exercising jurisdiction substantially in conformity with this act, unless the proceeding is stayed by the court of the other state because this state is a more appropriate forum or for other reasons. (emphasis added) Miss. Code Ann. § 93-23-11(1) (1972). Again, a lack of clarity in the record makes it impossible to determine on appeal whether or not the Montana court stayed its proceedings, so as to allow the Copiah County court to proceed. This Court considered a similar situation in Hobbs v. Hobbs, 508 So.2d 677 (Miss. 1987). After concluding that the chancellor had erred in failing to apply the UCCJA, the Court in Hobbs reversed the judgment and remanded the cause with instructions that the trial judge apply the Act. Similarly, in the present case the lower court erred when it failed to apply the UCCJA.