Opinion ID: 852448
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mother's Motion to Dismiss for Forum Inconvenience

Text: Because the trial court held that Mother waived her right to claim forum inconvenience, Father argues that dismissal should have been barred. The UCCJL provides that a court with subject matter jurisdiction over a child custody dispute may nonetheless decline to exercise its jurisdiction any time before making a decree if it finds that it is an inconvenient forum . . . under the circumstances . . . and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum. Ind.Code Ann. § 31-17-3-7(a) (West 2006). [4] The issue of inconvenient forum may be raised on motion of a party or on the court's own motion. Id. § 31-17-3-7(b). [5] A court's decision as to whether to exercise jurisdiction is reviewable for an abuse of discretion. Palm v. Palm, 690 N.E.2d 364, 368 (Ind.Ct.App.1998). In reviewing the trial court's decision, we consider only the evidence most favorable to the decision and reverse only if the result is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Id. As discussed above, the mere fact that the child and his custodial parent live in another state does not, as a matter of law, divest the trial court of jurisdiction. Where the parties to a family law dispute reside in different states, there will frequently be more than one state with subject matter jurisdiction. Forum inconvenience rules were created to determine which of these courts should resolve the dispute, not as a means of divesting either court of subject matter jurisdiction. See Campbell v. Campbell, 180 Ind.App. 351, 388 N.E.2d 607 (Ind.Ct.App.1979). [6] Accordingly, forum inconvenience claims can be waived. In this case, the Mother had initiated the dissolution action in Indiana and asked the Indiana court to rule on custody. The custody matter was pending in Indiana for more than two years prior to Mother's forum inconvenience motion. During that time, the parties filed numerous motions, conducted parenting time plans, attended mediation, and otherwise availed themselves of the Indiana court system. The trial court issued several orders and dedicated substantial resources to the child custody dispute. These activities support a plausible claim of waiver based on unjustified delay in filing a forum inconvenience motion. Nonetheless, even if a party has waived the right to claim forum inconvenience, a trial court has discretion to decline to exercise jurisdiction on the grounds of forum inconvenience. The UCCJL provides that a court with subject matter jurisdiction over a child custody dispute may decline to exercise its jurisdiction any time before making a decree if it finds that it is an inconvenient forum . . . under the circumstances . . . and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum. Ind. Code Ann. § 31-17-3-7(a) (West 2006) (emphasis added). [7] The issue of inconvenient forum may be raised on the court's own motion. Id. § 31-17-3-7(b). [8] Because the UCCJL authorizes a court on its own motion to decline exercising jurisdiction at any time prior to issuing a decree, waiver by a party does not prevent a court, in its discretion, from dismissing a case based on forum inconvenience. Indiana Code § 31-17-3-7(c) (2006) set forth the factors for determining whether Indiana was an inconvenient forum. [9] These factors included but were not limited to: (1) if another state is or recently was the child's home state; (2) if another state has a closer connection with the child and his family or with the child and one (1) or more of the contestants; (3) if substantial evidence concerning the child's present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships is more readily available in another state; (4) if the parties have agreed on another forum which is no less appropriate; and (5) if the exercise of jurisdiction by a court of this state would contravene any of the purposes [of the UCCJL]. Ind.Code Ann. § 31-17-3-7(c) (West 2006). In this case, the trial court determined that Indiana is an inconvenient forum because Washington has always been the child's home state, the parties lived in Washington for many years, witnesses and evidence concerning the child are best available in Washington, and Washington has a closer connection with the child and with substantial evidence concerning her care, education, and relationships. This analysis comports with the statutory factors for evaluating forum inconvenience, and facts in the record support these determinations. Despite that A.S., being unborn, did not have a home state nor close connections with the state of Washington when the proceeding was commenced, the trial court can still properly consider these factors when determining whether to dismiss the action for forum inconvenience because the UCCJL authorizes a court to decline exercising jurisdiction any time before making a decree. Id. § 31-17-3-7(a). [10] The court is not limited to considering the parties' circumstances only as they existed at the time the petition was filed, but rather can evaluate the case on a continuing basis to ensure the child's best interests are protected. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise its jurisdiction over A.S.'s custody determination.