Opinion ID: 2355813
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The District Court Relinquished Its Exclusive Jurisdiction on Improper Grounds

Text: [¶ 8] Cushman implicitly argues that the court erred when it ceded jurisdiction to Alabama, explicitly arguing, among other things, that the court erred in finding that Alabama is now the child's home state and that Maine has original and continuing exclusive jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to the PKPA and the UCCJEA. [3] We review the application and interpretation of a statute de novo. Oppenheim v. Hutchinson, 2007 ME 73, ¶ 7, 926 A.2d 177, 180; Tisdale v. Rawson, 2003 ME 68, ¶ 22, 822 A.2d 1136, 1142. [¶ 9] As an initial matter, it is undisputed that Maine has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over custody matters in this case. The PKPA provides for the continuing jurisdiction of the state court that initially issues child custody orders, stating: The jurisdiction of a court of a State which has made a child custody or visitation determination consistently with the provisions of this section continues as long as the requirement of subsection (c)(1) of this section [requiring that the State have jurisdiction under its own laws] continues to be met and such State remains the residence of the child or of any contestant. 28 U.S.C.S. § 1738A(d); see Shanoski v. Miller, 2001 ME 139, ¶ 13, 780 A.2d 275, 278; Barclay, 2000 ME 10, ¶ 9, 743 A.2d at 1262. These requirements are all met in this case. [4] As a result, a court of another state may not modify Maine's custody or visitation determination in this case unless and until the Maine court has declined to exercise its jurisdiction to modify such determination. 28 U.S.C.S. § 1738A(f), (h); see also 19-A M.R.S. § 1746(1). The issue, then, is whether Maine properly declined to exercise its continuing exclusive jurisdiction. See Shanoski, 2001 ME 139, ¶ 15, 780 A.2d at 278-79; 28 U.S.C.S. § 1738A(f)(2), (h); 19-A M.R.S. § 1751. [¶ 10] Pursuant to the UCCJEA, a Maine court may decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum. [5] 19-A M.R.S. § 1751(1). Before determining whether it is an inconvenient forum, the Maine court shall consider whether it is appropriate for a court of another state to exercise jurisdiction. For this purpose, the court shall allow the parties to submit information and shall consider all relevant factors, including the eight factors provided in section 1751(2) of the UCCJEA. [6] 19-A M.R.S. § 1751(2). We review a decision to decline to exercise jurisdiction for reason of inconvenient forum for abuse of discretion. Shanoski, 2001 ME 139, ¶ 16, 780 A.2d at 279. [¶ 11] Assuming the court in this case intended to decline to exercise its jurisdiction based on a theory of inconvenient forum, we conclude that it misapplied section 1751 and thus abused its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction. The court based its decision to relinquish jurisdiction on its determination that Alabama is the appropriate venue to determine custody and/or parent child contact because (1) the child's home state is now Alabama, and (2) the court in Alabama had assumed jurisdiction, according to a letter the court received from Alabama. These are improper grounds for relinquishing jurisdiction in this matter. [¶ 12] First, although a determination as to a child's home state is required under the PKPA when determining which state court should assume initial jurisdiction for the purpose of making child custody determinations, this analysis does not apply to a court's decision to retain jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.S. § 1738A(c)(2)(A); Barclay, 2000 ME 10, ¶¶ 10 n. 4, 11 n. 5, 743 A.2d at 1262-63 (stating that the `home state' preference only applies to initial custody determinations). [¶ 13] Second, pursuant to the PKPA, 28 U.S.C.S. § 1738A(f) and (h), the court in Alabama may assume jurisdiction only if the court in Maine first declines jurisdiction for inconvenient forum; the Maine District Court does not cede its exclusive jurisdiction in response to Alabama's purported assumption of jurisdiction. See also 19-A M.R.S. §§ 1746, 1751. The court erred when it relinquished jurisdiction based, even in part, on Alabama's claiming to have assumed jurisdiction. [¶ 14] The court was instead required to consider, in addition to any other relevant factors, the eight factors provided in section 1751(2) of the UCCJEA. With the possible exception of [t]he length of time the child has resided outside this State, 19-A M.R.S. § 1751(2)(B), the court did not consider any of these factors. Furthermore, there is no indication that the court allowed the parties to submit information, as required by section 1751(2), before determining whether Maine is an inconvenient forum or whether it is appropriate for Alabama to exercise jurisdiction. [7] Because the court failed to apply section 1751 as statutorily required and based its decision on improper considerations, the court erred in ceding its jurisdiction in this matter.