Opinion ID: 1658292
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Jurisdiction of the Florida Court.

Text: In seeking reversal of the district court's order, Michael argues the controlling issue is whether he continues to have custody of Kim under the Iowa decree entered in conformance with the procedendo from this court. He urges this question must be answered in the affirmative because the Florida court was without jurisdiction to modify our decree. We refrain from considering whether if the Florida court had jurisdiction to modify our decree it could do so by a temporary order issued prior to adjudication of the merits. We need not reach that issue because we are convinced the Florida court did not have jurisdiction to interfere with the custodial provisions of our September 1984 decision. The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act has been enacted in both Iowa and Florida. We recognized in In re Marriage of Mintle, 294 N.W.2d 564 (Iowa 1980), that, under this uniform legislation, two conditions must be satisfied before a court may disturb a custody determination made by a court of another state. These are: (1) the court which rendered the decree must lack jurisdiction (at the time of the requested modification) or decline to exercise jurisdiction, and (2) the court in the foreign state must have jurisdiction under the provisions of the UCCJA. Id. at 566. In Mintle, we held that the Iowa courts were without jurisdiction to modify a Colorado custody decree because the Colorado courts continued to have jurisdiction to do so and had not declined to exercise such jurisdiction. We found the Colorado court had continuing jurisdiction in Mintle because that state qualified as the home state of the child under Iowa Code section 598A.3(1)(a) (1985). Apparently, the district court felt that Mintle was inapplicable in the present case because Kim's absence from Iowa for more than a year made Florida her home state under the UCCJA. The district court further concluded that Iowa should not exercise continuing jurisdiction under Iowa Code section 598A.3(1)(b) (1985) because it was in the best interests of the child that Florida assume jurisdiction of the modification action. While the district court's ruling might be correct in regard to subparagraph (a), we conclude that it misapplied subparagraph (b). The most widely cited case on this proposition appears to be Kumar v. Superior Court, 32 Cal.3d 689, 652 P.2d 1003, 186 Cal.Rptr. 772 (1982). There a child who was the subject of a New York custody decree had lived with her mother in California for more than a year. The mother petitioned the California courts to modify the New York decree, and the California trial court did. The Supreme Court of California reversed. We quote from that opinion, substituting the corresponding provisions of the Iowa Code for the identical California statutes referred to by the court: In support of her claim that California has jurisdiction to modify the New York decree, Yvonne relies upon what has been termed the myth of concurrent modification jurisdiction. Under Yvonne's analysis, one starts with [section 598A.3] rather than [section 598A.14].... Yvonne then considers which forum has greater connection with the child and concludes, as did the trial court, that California has the closest connections. Id. at 698-99, 652 P.2d at 1009, 186 Cal.Rptr. at 778 (citation omitted). In rejecting this contention, the California court observed: Initial jurisdiction is determined by the guidelines of [section 598A.3], which point to the state with the closest connections to the child and to information about his present and future well-being. Modification jurisdiction is perhaps best viewed as an extension of the recognition and enforcement provisions of the Uniform [Child Custody Jurisdiction] Act. California is not effectively enforcing the New York decree if it modifies the decree as soon as the child has spent six months within its borders. Id. at 699, 652 P.2d at 1009, 186 Cal.Rptr. at 778 (citation omitted). As support for these conclusions, the California court quotes extensively from an article prepared by the reporter for the special committee which drafted the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. In this article, the author states: Exclusive continuing jurisdiction is not affected by the child's residence in another state for six months or more. Although the new state becomes the child's home state, significant connection jurisdiction continues in the state of the prior decree where the court record and other evidence exists and where one parent or another contestant continues to reside. Only when the child and all parties have moved away is deference to another state's continuing jurisdiction no longer required. Bodenheimer, Interstate Custody: Initial Jurisdiction and Continuing Jurisdiction Under the UCCJA, 14 Fam.L.Q. 203, 214-15 (1981). The Kumar decision has been approved and followed by the courts of several states. Hamill v. Bower, 487 So.2d 345, 347-48 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1986); Funk v. Macaulay, 457 N.E.2d 223, 227 (Ind.Ct.App.1983); Clarke v. Clarke, 126 N.H. 753, 758, 496 A.2d 361, 364 (1985); Neger v. Neger, 93 N.J. 15, 31, 459 A.2d 628, 636 (1983). We are convinced that these decisions express the correct interpretation of the UCCJA. Because the courts of this state have continuing jurisdiction to modify the 1984 decree fixing Kim's custody and have not declined to exercise that jurisdiction, the Florida court, under the preferred interpretation of the UCCJA, was without jurisdiction to transfer custody, even temporarily, from Michael to Heidi. See Mintle, 294 N.W.2d at 566. An equally persuasive reason for concluding the Florida court was without jurisdiction is the preemptive effect which must be accorded the Federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. § 1738A (1983). The provisions of this federal legislation indicate a congressional intent that the act be applied in all interstate custody disputes. State courts considering the question have held the federal legislation preempts state law in determining when jurisdiction may be exercised in interstate custody matters. Ex parte Lee, 445 So.2d 287, 290 (Ala.Civ.App.1983); In re Marriage of Pedowitz, 179 Cal.App.3d 992, 999, 225 Cal.Rptr. 186, 189 (1986); Tufares v. Wright, 98 N.M. 8, 10, 644 P.2d 522, 524 (1982); Voninski v. Voninski, 661 S.W.2d 872, 876 (Tenn.Ct.App.1982); Arbogast v. Arbogast, 327 S.E.2d 675, 679 (W.Va.1984). The federal statute uses language more specific than the UCCJA in limiting modification jurisdiction. The controlling language is as follows: The jurisdiction of a court of a State which has made a child custody determination consistently with the provisions of this section continues as long as the requirement of subsection (c)(1) of this section [that that court has jurisdiction under its own law] continues to be met and such State remains the residence of the child or of any contestant. 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(d) (emphasis added). In the present case, one of the contestants (Michael) was at all times a resident of Iowa. Both the UCCJA and the Federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980 lead to the conclusion that Michael's rights under the Iowa decree are unaffected by the order of the Florida court. The district court erred in granting the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Another basis for the district court's order was its belief that Michael had perpetrated a fraud on the Florida court by entering into a stipulation he did not intend to honor. Any improper conduct by Michael in this regard is doubtless a factor which should be considered in determining whether he is a proper custodian for Kim. There is, however, no application for change of custody pending in a court with jurisdiction. Michael's conduct before the Florida court does not ipso facto undo the terms of our existing custody order. Heidi's petition for writ of habeas corpus was based on the temporary order of the Florida court which was issued as a result of the stipulation. It suffers from an infirmity in that court's subject matter jurisdiction. Michael preserved his right to challenge that jurisdiction in the stipulation giving rise to the order.