Opinion ID: 1817549
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: The NCCJA gives jurisdiction to the juvenile court over custody proceedings, including dependency proceedings. In re Interest of L.W., 241 Neb. 84, 486 N.W.2d 486 (1992). Custody proceeding, as used in the NCCJA, includes proceedings in a juvenile court in which a person under 18 years of age is alleged to be a child as described in § 43-247(3). § 43-1202(3)(b). Because the State filed its petition alleging that 12-year-old Floyd comes within the meaning of ... Section 43-247(3a) and because the State asked the court to make an order regarding the custody of Floyd, the juvenile court was clearly involved in a custody proceeding, and thus, the NCCJA applies in the instant case. However, the State contends that the provisions of the NCCJA cannot be invoked in the case at bar because no jurisdictional conflict exists with another state. While it is true that no other state has exercised jurisdiction over Floyd in a custody proceeding, the NCCJA, nevertheless, still applies. In In re Gloria F., 212 Cal.App.3d 576, 260 Cal. Rptr. 706 (1989), the San Diego Department of Social Services argued that the provisions of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (Uniform Act) did not apply to the custody proceeding that was at bar because no jurisdictional conflict existed with another state. The California Court of Appeals, in rejecting the argument, reasoned that [n]othing in [the purposes section of the Uniform Act] indicates the act and its jurisdictional requirements apply only when a present conflict exists, i.e., when custody actions are proceeding in the courts of more than one state. Indeed section 5150, subdivision (1)(c), states that one of the purposes of the act is to [a]ssure that litigation concerning the custody of a child take place ordinarily in the state with which the child and his family have the closest connection and where significant evidence concerning his care, protection, training, and personal relationships is most readily available, and that courts of this state decline the exercise of jurisdiction when the child and his family have a closer connection with another state. Thus the act is not meant merely to mediate jurisdictional disputes but to direct litigation to the state best able to resolve it. Id. at 583, 260 Cal.Rptr. at 710. The court further reasoned that under section 5161 a custody decree rendered in California is binding in this state only if the rendering court had jurisdiction under section 5152. Moreover, a custody decree under the Uniform Act is entitled to interstate recognition only if issued by a state which had assumed jurisdiction under statutory provisions substantially in accordance with this title or which was made under factual circumstances meeting the jurisdictional standards of the title.... The Uniform Act clearly contemplates that all custody decrees made in states that have enacted the UCCJA will be made only when jurisdiction exists under the act. Thus, the act's purpose to [a]void jurisdiction competition and conflict with courts of other states in matters of child custody ... is directed not just to present conflicts but to the potential for conflicts in the future. The jurisdictional requirements, therefore, of section 5152 apply to all custody cases in California, not just to those where a present conflict exists. (Citations omitted.) Id. at 583-84, 260 Cal. Rptr. at 710. The relevant purposes and provisions of the NCCJA are virtually identical to those cited in the Uniform Act, and we are persuaded by the California Court of Appeals' reasoning. Thus, we hold that the NCCJA's purpose to [a]void jurisdictional competition and conflict with courts of other states in matters of child custody ...,§ 43-1201(1)(a), is directed not just to present conflicts but to the potential for conflicts in the future. Therefore, the jurisdictional requirements of the NCCJA apply in the instant case even though a jurisdictional conflict does not currently exist with another state. Since the jurisdictional requirements of the NCCJA are applicable, it must be determined whether the juvenile court properly exercised its jurisdiction. In determining whether a court should entertain a child custody proceeding having interstate implications, the court should first determine whether it has jurisdiction and then determine whether it is appropriate to exercise jurisdiction. Van Norman v. Upperman, 231 Neb. 524, 436 N.W.2d 834 (1989).