Opinion ID: 1945864
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Allegations were Insufficient to Continue Emergency Jurisdiction

Text: After it received a certified copy of the North Carolina child-custody decree on February 28, 2003, and especially after the hearing on November 5, 2003, it should have been apparent to the Family Court that it should not have continued to exercise emergency jurisdiction. This is so because the testimony given by Beauregard and Dr. Parsons was insufficient to justify continued jurisdiction. In Woods v. Winsor, 637 A.2d 373, 374 (R.I.1994), this Court held that the Family Court's finding of no emergency under the UCCJA, § 15-14-4(a)(3)(ii), was proper when the facts behind the allegations of abuse already had been considered and litigated in Kentucky, the state that previously had issued a custody decree. There, the mother had filed a petition in Kentucky seeking to prevent the father's visitation with the child, and she had made allegations that the father had sexually abused the child. Woods, 637 A.2d at 374 & n. 1. At the hearing before the Family Court, the trial justice did not admit evidence about abuse that had occurred prior to the Kentucky court's decision, because the Kentucky judge had found that those allegations were simply another ploy to deny visitation. Id. at 374. We held that Kentucky had jurisdiction over the case and had the authority to issue the custody order. Id. Consequently, we decided that Kentucky's order was entitled to full faith and credit. Id. Here, after the hearing on November 5, 2003, the general magistrate gave a bench decision in which he ruled that there were sufficient allegations for emergency jurisdiction to continue. He found that the allegations of abuse and the apparent pedophilia justified the court's exercise of jurisdiction. However, our review of the record reveals that the allegations of pedophilia and child pornography were completely unsubstantiated, [8] and all the allegations of mistreatment and abuse, including the alleged shaking and the circumstances surrounding the order for protection from abuse, were offered in the North Carolina court and were considered and discounted by the judge before that judicial officer gave his decision. To illustrate, the judge took note of the tumultuous event that occurred outside Dr. Hayden's office, and he considered it when he determined that plaintiff likely would make it difficult for the father to visit the children in Rhode Island. Furthermore, in August 2000, the North Carolina court considered the allegations that White shook Nicholas when Beauregard attempted to terminate visitation, and those allegations again were considered by the judge when he made his child-custody determination. It is significant to us that in June 2001, DCYF found that the allegations of abuse by the father had not been substantiated. With respect to the allegations about White's use of the Internet for male pornography, the North Carolina judge expressly considered that when he made his custody determination. Therefore, in our opinion, it was improper for the Family Court to continue to exercise emergency jurisdiction in the absence of any new allegation that, if proven, would reveal the presence of a real emergency because of mistreatment or abuse. A review of the testimony from the hearing reveals that there were no other allegations of mistreatment or abuse, other than those that already had been considered by the North Carolina court. Although Parsons, the psychologist, concluded that it was not in the children's best interest to move to North Carolina and that relocating them to that state may in fact result in irreparable harm, these circumstances do not rise to the level of a real emergency creating substantial harm from actual or threatened mistreatment or abuse. See In re M.M., 222 Ga.App. 313, 474 S.E.2d 53, 55 (1996) (the possibility that the child's well-being `may be' detrimentally affected by a certain condition is not sufficient to support the exercise of emergency jurisdiction). It is clear to us that the circumstances here did not present a real emergency, especially considering that so much time had passed, and Beauregard had had ample time to bring her concerns to the attention of the North Carolina court. Furthermore, even if the hearing magistrate had been correct in continuing to exercise emergency jurisdiction, in our opinion, his order was impermissibly broad in scope. Emergency jurisdiction under the UCCJA only confers authority to make temporary orders. Nadeau, 716 A.2d at 723-24. Emergency jurisdiction does not authorize courts to make permanent custody orders. In re A.L.H., 160 Vt. 410, 630 A.2d 1288, 1291 (1993). Nor does emergency jurisdiction authorize jurisdiction to modify the custody decree of a court with continuing jurisdiction. Trader v. Darrow, 630 A.2d 634, 639 (Del.1993). The plaintiff argues that the Family Court order, entered on January 4, 2004, was temporary because it lasted only until defendant complied with its mandates. In other words, White may have been handcuffed, but he possessed the keys. But, the order contains no language indicating that it was temporary in nature; rather, it was indeterminate and therefore inappropriate.