Opinion ID: 1111563
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did the Superior Court Have Jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act?

Text: B.J. first challenges the superior court's assumption of jurisdiction over this dispute. J.D. argues that B.J. waived this argument by failing to raise the issue of jurisdiction until her trial brief, nearly a year after J.D. commenced the superior court proceedings. Subject matter jurisdiction is generally a matter of law that we review de novo. See Hydaburg Cooperative Ass'n v. Hydaburg Fisheries, 925 P.2d 246, 248 (Alaska 1996). Because subject matter jurisdiction issues may be raised at any time during litigation and jurisdiction otherwise lacking cannot be conferred by estoppel, the issue of subject matter jurisdiction was properly before the superior court. O'Link v. O'Link, 632 P.2d 225, 226-27 n. 2 (Alaska 1981). Jurisdiction in custody matters is governed by the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. See AS 25.30.020(a). [4] A court must determine whether jurisdiction under the UCCJA exists or does not exist at the time when the petition is filed with the court. Rexford v. Rexford, 631 P.2d 475, 478 (Alaska 1980). B.J. contends that none of the conditions for exercising jurisdiction under the UCCJA exists. She asserts that Alaska was not V.J.'s home state, that V.J. was not a child in need of aid, and that Hawaii had jurisdiction. While J.D. concedes that Alaska was not V.J.'s home state under AS 25.30.020(a)(1)(A) at the time he filed the action, [5] he maintains that the superior court properly asserted jurisdiction under AS 25.30.020(a)(3). We agree. The superior court determined that it had jurisdiction under AS 25.30.020(a)(3), because it appear[ed] that no other state would have jurisdiction under prerequisites substantially in accordance with (1) or (2) of th[e] subsection. AS 25.30.020(a)(3)(A). Neither Alaska nor Hawaii was V.J.'s home state at the time of filing. When J.D. filed the action, B.J. did not live in Hawaii and did not intend to return to Hawaii. Thus, because no parent or person acting as parent continued to live in Hawaii, that state could not have exercised jurisdiction. Additionally, resolving this custody dispute in Alaska, rather than dismissing it when no other state had jurisdiction, appears to have been in the best interest of the child. [6] AS 25.30.020(a)(3)(B). The purposes of the UCCJA include assur[ing] that litigation concerning the custody of a child takes place ordinarily in the state with which the child and the child's family have the closest connection and where significant evidence concerning the child's care, protection, training, and personal relationships is most readily available. AS 25.30.010(3). [7] The UCCJA is also designed to discourage continuing controversies over child custody in the interest of greater stability of home environment and of secure family relationships for the child. AS 25.30.010(4). Both of these policy considerations weigh in favor of the superior court's assertion of jurisdiction in this case. We affirm the superior court's assumption of jurisdiction under AS 25.30.020(3). No other state would have had jurisdiction of the case under the UCCJA at the time the action was filed, and it was in V.J.'s best interest for Alaska to exercise jurisdiction over this matter.