Opinion ID: 852448
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did Our Trial Court Ever Have Jurisdiction as Respects A.S.?

Text: Like all other states, Indiana has dealt with the phenomenon of interstate child custody disputes by adopting statutes based on the models created by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. We thus turn first to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Law (UCCJL), Ind.Code § 31-17-3-3 (2006), which provides four factors for conferring jurisdiction: (1) this state (A) is the home state of the child at the time of commencement of the proceeding, or (B) 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; (2) it is in the best interest of the child that a court of this state assume jurisdiction because (A) the child and his parents, or the child and at least one (1) contestant, have a significant connection with this state, and (B) there is available in this state substantial evidence concerning the child's present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships; (3) the child is physically present in this state and the child has been abandoned; or (4)(A) it appears that no other state would have jurisdiction under prerequisites substantially in accordance with paragraphs (1), (2), or (3), 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 (B) it is in the best interest of the child that this court assume jurisdiction. Ind.Code Ann. § 31-17-3-3(a) (West 2006). [1] Home state is defined as: the state in which the child, immediately preceding the time involved, lived with the child's parents, a parent, or a person acting as parent, for at least six (6) consecutive months, and in the case of a child less than six (6) months old the state in which the child lived from birth with any of the persons mentioned. Id. § 31-17-3-2(5). [2] These provisions leave a bit of legal lacuna as to custody cases filed before the birth of the child. Some states have held that the subject matter jurisdictional requirement is not met if the child is born in another state. For example, in In re Marriage of Tonnessen, 937 P.2d 863 (Colo.Ct. App.1996), divorce proceedings were initiated in Colorado, but the pregnant wife moved to Arizona before the birth of the twin children. The Colorado court held that even though the husband amended the divorce proceedings to include custody, there was no jurisdiction in Colorado under their UCCJL because the children never lived there after birth. Other courts have observed that the facial terms of the UCCJL contemplate regulation of jurisdiction in litigation that commences after a child is born. In Gullett v. Gullett, 992 S.W.2d 866 (Ky.Ct.App. 1999), the parties initiated divorce and child custody proceedings in Kentucky while the wife was pregnant. The wife moved to Ohio before birth of the child. The court held that Kentucky had jurisdiction because although Kentucky was not the home state of the unborn child, there was no other home state at the time the proceedings were filed and it was in the best interest of the child for the state to assume jurisdiction. Although Ohio later became the child's home state, the court held that Kentucky exercised valid initial and continuing jurisdiction. As the Kentucky Court of Appeals aptly noted in Gullett, [a child's unborn status] at the time of the filing of the petition for dissolution creates an anomaly in the application of the [UCCJL]. Id. at 869. The UCCJL confers subject matter jurisdiction to a state if the state is the home state of the child at the time of commencement of the proceeding. Ind.Code Ann. § 31-17-3-3(a)(1) (West 2006). A proceeding is commenced when a parent files a petition for dissolution of the marriage. See id. § 31-17-3-2(3) (West 2006) (`custody proceeding' includes proceedings in which a custody determination is one of several issues, such as an action for dissolution of marriage. . . .). For a child less than six months old, the child's home state is defined as the state in which the child lived from birth.  Id. § 31-17-3-2(5) (West 2006) (emphasis added). Because Mother filed her petition for dissolution prior to the birth of A.S., A.S. did not have a home state at the time of the commencement of the proceeding. Accordingly, Ind.Code § 31-17-3-3(a)(4) becomes applicable for determining whether Indiana had subject matter jurisdiction over A.S.'s custody determination. This subsection confers jurisdiction to Indiana if the child does not have a home state and it is in the best interest of the child for Indiana to assume jurisdiction. At the time the dissolution petition was filed, no other state, including Washington, had custody jurisdiction over A.S. because she had not yet been born. A.S.'s parents resided had both resided in Indiana and information about A.S.'s parents and other family members was available in Indiana. Upon the birth of A.S., Washington became her home state. Id.; Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 26.27.201(1)(a) (West 2006). Thereafter, Washington had concurrent subject matter jurisdiction to determine A.S.'s custody. Wash. Rev.Code Ann. § 26.27.201(1) (West 2006). However, a Washington Court may not exercise its jurisdiction . . . if, at the time of commencement of the proceeding, a proceeding concerning the custody of the child has been commenced in a court of another state having jurisdiction substantially in conformity with this chapter, unless the proceeding has been terminated or is stayed by the court of the other state because [Washington] is a more convenient forum. Id. § 26.27.251(1) (the equivalent to Ind. Code § 31-17-3-6 (2006) [3] ). Even though Washington later became A.S.'s home state, Indiana did not necessarily lose jurisdiction. Ind.Code Ann. § 31-17-3-3(a)(4) (West 2006). The mere fact that the child and her custodial parent live in another state does not, as a matter of law, compel dismissal. See id. § 31-17-3-3(c) (Physical presence of the child, while desirable, is not prerequisite for jurisdiction to determine his custody.). Accordingly, because a custody case was already pending in Indiana in conformity with the UCCJL, Washington could not have exercised jurisdiction over A.S.'s custody unless Indiana terminated or stayed the proceeding. Thus, the Indiana trial court could have continued to entertain A.S.'s custody determination, but, as discussed below, deferring to Washington was also within the court's discretion.