Opinion ID: 2343638
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Interstate Jurisdiction and Full Faith and Credit

Text: ¶ 9. This case is, at base, an interstate jurisdictional dispute over visitation with a child. Lisa argues here that the Vermont family court should have given full faith and credit to the Virginia court's custody and parentage decision, which determined Janet had no parentage or visitation rights with respect to IMJ. The family court rejected this argument because it concluded the Virginia decision did not comport with the PKPA, which was designed for the very purpose of eliminating jurisdictional battles between states with conflicting jurisdictional provisions in child custody disputes. The Vermont court determined it had exercised jurisdiction consistent with the requirements of the PKPA and had continuing jurisdiction at the time Lisa's action was filed in Virginia. Therefore, it further concluded the Virginia court was prohibited from exercising jurisdiction by the PKPA, § 1738A(g), and the Vermont court had no obligation to give full faith and credit to the conflicting Virginia decision. ¶ 10. In analyzing Lisa's arguments, we note that she does not contest that if she and Janet were a validly married heterosexual couple, the family court's PKPA analysis would be correct. Because of her tacit acceptance of the family court's analysis with regard to jurisdiction under the PKPA, we provide only a summary description of why we believe that the family court was correct. ¶ 11. The purpose of the PKPA is to determine when one state must give full faith and credit to a child custody determination of another state, such that the new state cannot thereafter act inconsistently with the original custody determination. Thompson v. Thompson, 484 U.S. 174, 181, 108 S.Ct. 513, 98 L.Ed.2d 512 (1988). The PKPA follows on, and includes many of the provisions of, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), adopted in Vermont as 15 V.S.A. §§ 1031-1051. These acts were adopted to respond to a growing public concern over the fact that thousands of children are shifted from state to state and from one family to another every year while their parents or other persons battle over their custody in the courts of several states. National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, Prefatory Note (1968). The PKPA embodies preferences to leave jurisdiction in the state which rendered the original decree[,] . . . to promote the best interests of the child[,] . . . [and to] discourage[] interstate abduction and other unilateral removals of children for the purpose of obtaining a favorable custody decree. Michalik v. Michalik, 172 Wis.2d 640, 494 N.W.2d 391, 398 (1993). ¶ 12. The PKPA applies equally to a visitation determination, requiring states to enforce any custody determination or visitation determination made consistently with the provisions of this section by a court of another State. 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(a). Because the first custody and visitation determination with respect to IMJ was made by the Vermont court, we must first examine whether that court exercised jurisdiction consistently with the provisions of the PKPA. Id. If it did, and if it continued to have jurisdiction when Lisa filed her proceeding in the Virginia court, the Virginia court was without jurisdiction to modify the Vermont order. Id. § 1738A(g), (h). ¶ 13. In order for a Vermont court to exercise jurisdiction consistent with the PKPA, it must have jurisdiction under Vermont law, id. § 1738A(c)(1), and meet one of four conditions, id. § 1738A(c)(2)(A)-(D). In this case, it met the condition in subsection (A)(c)(2)(A)(ii) that Vermont had been the child's home State within six months before the date of the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from such State because of his removal or retention by a contestant or for other reasons, and a contestant continues to live in such State. Id. § 1738A(c)(2)(A)(ii). For purposes of this provision, home State is defined to mean the State in which, immediately preceding the time involved, the child lived with his parents, a parent, or a person acting as parent, for at least six consecutive months. Id. § 1738A(b)(4). Because Vermont had been IMJ's home state within six months before Lisa filed her dissolution petition in November 2003, Lisa had removed IMJ from Vermont, and Janet lived in Vermont on the date the dissolution proceeding was commenced, the requirements of subsection (A)(ii) were met. See Matthews v. Riley, 162 Vt. 401, 406, 649 A.2d 231, 236 (1994). ¶ 14. The PKPA also requires that the court have jurisdiction under Vermont law. Whether local jurisdiction is present is determined by the UCCJA. 15 V.S.A. § 1032(a); Matthews, 162 Vt. at 406, 649 A.2d at 235. For the exact reason that the Vermont proceeding met the PKPA condition discussed above, supra, ¶ 13, it met the identically-worded provision of the UCCJA. Compare 15 V.S.A. § 1032(a)(1)(B) with 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(c)(2)(A)(ii). Thus, the family court had jurisdiction under Vermont law as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(c)(1). ¶ 15. Because the Vermont dissolution proceeding was still pending in July 2004, when Lisa filed her action in the Virginia court, and the Vermont proceeding was consistent with the PKPA, the Virginia court lacked jurisdiction pursuant to § 1738A(g) of the PKPA. That section specified that the court could not exercise jurisdiction over a proceeding to determine the custody of, or visitation with, IMJ while the Vermont proceeding was pending. The Virginia court violated this section by exercising jurisdiction over the case filed by Lisa. ¶ 16. Because the Vermont court had issued a temporary custody and visitation order, the Virginia court was also governed by § 1738A(h) of the PKPA. That section prohibited the Virginia court from modifying the Vermont court's order unless the Vermont court no longer [had] jurisdiction to modify such determination or had declined to exercise jurisdiction to modify such determination. Since the Vermont court continued to exercise jurisdiction over the Vermont proceeding, the Virginia court could have modified the order only if the Vermont court had lost its initial jurisdiction. Under the PKPA, a court that had initial jurisdiction to issue a custody or visitation order continues to have jurisdiction as long as it continues to have jurisdiction under state law and one of the contestants remains a resident of the state. Id. § 1738A(d); Matthews, 162 Vt. at 407, 649 A.2d at 236. The latter requirement is met because Janet continues to reside in Vermont. ¶ 17. Again, the former requirement of continuing jurisdiction is met if it is authorized by the UCCJA. See Matthews, 162 Vt. at 407, 649 A.2d at 236-37. At the time the Virginia court acted, the Vermont court had jurisdiction to modify its own visitation order if: (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 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. 15 V.S.A. § 1032(a)(2). These provisions were met because IMJ had recently resided in Vermont and the evidence of IMJ's relationship with Janet was present in Vermont. Matthews, 162 Vt. at 412, 649 A.2d at 239. ¶ 18. The Vermont court had continuing jurisdiction over the matter of Janet's visitation with IMJ. Therefore, the Virginia order extinguishing Janet's visitation right was issued in violation of § 1738A(h) of the PKPA. The Vermont court was not required to give full faith and credit to the Virginia order issued in violation of the PKPA. Matthews, 162 Vt. at 412-13, 649 A.2d at 240. ¶ 19. Lisa makes three arguments against applying this analysis in this case. First, she argues that the Virginia proceeding is a parentage action, and the PKPA does not apply to parentage actions. Even if we were to accept this argument, we do not understand how it would determine the question before us  that is, whether the Vermont court must give full faith and credit to the Virginia parentage decision. Apparently, Lisa's logic is as follows: Although the Vermont court determined that Janet is a parent of IMJ, the Virginia court could and did determine that Janet is not a parent of IMJ; the Vermont court must now accept the Virginia determination and strike any visitation order based upon the Vermont parentage determination. Whether Virginia must enforce the Vermont visitation order is not directly involved in this appeal, but that is an entirely different question from whether full faith and credit requires the Vermont court to strike its own visitation order because the Virginia court refuses to recognize its validity based entirely on Virginia law. In Medveskas v. Karparis, 161 Vt. 387, 395, 640 A.2d 543, 546-47 (1994), we held that we would not extend full faith and credit to another state's custody determination if that state's court refused to extend full faith and credit to an earlier Vermont custody order. We will not give greater faith and credit to the judgments of the courts of other states than we give to our own courts' judgments. Id. at 394, 640 A.2d at 546 (quotations omitted). The same reasoning applies here. ¶ 20. Lisa is making the curious argument that if the PKPA does not apply to this dispute, Vermont will be required to give full faith and credit to the Virginia parentage decision and custody and visitation order. Our cases have routinely stated exactly the opposite position  that is, in the absence of a requirement imposed by the PKPA, Vermont courts will not extend full faith and credit to another state's custody and visitation order. See Rocissono v. Spykes, 170 Vt. 309, 316, 749 A.2d 592, 597 (2000) (Arizona's assertion of jurisdiction over custody dispute was inconsistent with the PKPA and thus not entitled to full faith and credit); Columb v. Columb, 161 Vt. 103, 107, 633 A.2d 689, 691 (1993) (custody order that does not meet PKPA requirements is not entitled to full faith and credit in other states). ¶ 21. In any event, we reject the argument that the PKPA is inapplicable. The PKPA applies to custody or visitation determinations. 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(a). It defines a custody determination as a judgment, decree, or other order of a court providing for the custody of a child, and includes permanent and temporary orders, and initial orders and modifications. Id. § 1738A(b)(3). It defines a visitation determination in nearly identical terms. Id. § 1738A(b)(9). Lisa's dissolution petition to the Rutland Family Court sought a custody determination, and the court's temporary order included a temporary determination of both custody and visitation. Lisa's parentage petition in the Virginia court sought a determination that Janet had no parental rights, and the Virginia court issued a temporary order requiring Janet's visitation to be supervised and then a permanent order that Janet had no right to visit IMJ. Plainly, the Virginia court decisions included visitation determinations as the term is defined in the PKPA. Just as plainly, the PKPA applied to those decisions. ¶ 22. Lisa's argument, then, is that a custody or visitation determination arising out of one kind of proceeding is covered by the PKPA, and a custody or visitation determination arising out of another is not. All of the decisions interpreting the PKPA in private family disputes conclude that the PKPA draws no such distinction. Martinez v. Reed, 623 F.Supp. 1050, 1055 (E.D.La.1985) (PKPA applies to guardianship decision); Guernsey v. Guernsey, 794 So.2d 1108, 1110 (Ala.Civ.App.1998) (parentage); Ray v. Ray, 494 So.2d 634, 637 (Ala.Civ.App.1986) (guardianship); In re Pima County Juvenile Action No. J-78632, 147 Ariz. 527, 711 P.2d 1200, 1206 (Ct.App.1985) (dependency proceeding initiated by grandfather), rev'd on other grounds, 147 Ariz. 584, 712 P.2d 431, 435 (1986); In re B.B.R., 566 A.2d 1032, 1040 n. 24 (D.C.1989) (habeas corpus); E.E.B. v. D.A., 89 N.J. 595, 446 A.2d 871, 876 (1982) (habeas corpus); In re Bean, 132 N.C.App. 363, 511 S.E.2d 683, 686 (1999) (termination of parental rights). In fact, this Court recently held that the PKPA applied to a guardianship proceeding from another state. Jackson v. Hendricks, 2005 VT 113, ¶ 9 n. 1, 179 Vt. ___, 893 A.2d 292 (mem.). The one case on which Lisa relies found that the PKPA did not apply to a parentage proceeding precisely because no party asked for a custody or visitation order and the court did not address custody or visitation. Sheila L. v. Ronald P.M., 195 W.Va. 210, 465 S.E.2d 210, 221 (1995). Such a situation is inapposite to the circumstances in this case. ¶ 23. We recognize that some courts have held the PKPA does not apply to neglect and dependency proceedings where the state is intervening to protect the child, see In re A.L.H., 160 Vt. 410, 413 n. 2, 630 A.2d 1288, 1290 n. 2 (1993) (citing cases), and Lisa has referenced these cases. These cases rely on three rationales: (1) the UCCJA explicitly applies to neglect and dependency proceedings, 15 V.S.A. § 1031(3), and the PKPA, which was drafted to generally track the UCCJA, intentionally omitted that language, see L.G. v. People, 890 P.2d 647, 661-62 (Colo.1995); In re L.W., 241 Neb. 84, 486 N.W.2d 486, 500-01 (1992); State ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Avinger, 104 N.M. 255, 720 P.2d 290, 292 (1986); (2) the purpose of the PKPA is to address the interstate enforcement of child custody decrees, and, in particular, particularly to address child-snatching, and not to interfere with a state's protection of a dependent and neglected child, see L.G., 890 P.2d at 661-62; In re L.W., 486 N.W.2d at 500-01; Avinger, 720 P.2d at 292; and (3) the continuing jurisdiction section of the PKPA, § 1738A(d), refers to a contestant, a term defined in § 1738A(b)(2) not to include the state, see In re L.W., 486 N.W.2d at 500-01. None of these rationales suggests that the PKPA should not apply in this visitation dispute between private parties. ¶ 24. For the above reasons, we reject Lisa's argument that the PKPA does not apply to the Virginia parentage decision. We hold that the PKPA applies to this case and does not command the Vermont court to give full faith and credit to the parentage decision of the Virginia court that was issued in violation of the PKPA. ¶ 25. Lisa's second argument is that the PKPA has been superseded by the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 28 U.S.C. § 1738C (2000), and DOMA requires that the Vermont court give full faith and credit to the Virginia decision and order. DOMA reads: No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship. Id. Lisa argues that a Vermont civil union is a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under Vermont law and that Janet's right of visitation, if any, arises from that relationship. Thus, she argues that DOMA authorized the Virginia court to reject any right of visitation based on the Vermont court order, and the Vermont court must give full faith and credit to the Virginia order. ¶ 26. The family court concluded that DOMA would not provide Lisa the relief she sought: Nor is the application of the PKPA in this case, as Lisa's counsel has suggested, hindered by the more recently enacted Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). . . . Whether or not a Virginia court may be permitted under DOMA to decline to give effect to the judicial proceedings in Vermont in a Virginia court is not relevant to the essential question before this court, or before the court of Virginia as a prerequisite for exercising its jurisdiction, of whether this Vermont court had jurisdiction under Vermont law over this dispute before it was filed in Virginia. Clearly Vermont has jurisdiction and therefore the Commonwealth of Virginia's judgment is not entitled to full faith and credit. Janet urges us to affirm on a broader and different ground: that DOMA and the PKPA should be construed to be consistent; this consistent construction would be that DOMA does not apply to custody and visitation orders. ¶ 27. We affirm on the ground employed by the Vermont court. This case is about whether the Vermont court must give full faith and credit to the decision of the Virginia court, and not the reverse. Unlike the PKPA, in no instance does DOMA require a court in one state to give full faith and credit to the decision of a court in another state. Its sole purpose is to provide an authorization not to give full faith and credit in the circumstances covered by the statute. Thus, DOMA does not aid Lisa's attack on the Vermont order. ¶ 28. Under Lisa's interpretation, we would be required to give full faith and credit to the Virginia court's decision not to give effect to the fully valid order of the Vermont court. Indeed, if we were to accept that argument, the Vermont biological parent of a child born to a civil union could always move to another state to make a visitation order unenforceable in every state, including Vermont. As we discussed above in relation to Lisa's PKPA argument, supra, ¶ 19, we held in Medveskas, 161 Vt. at 394, 640 A.2d at 546, that we will not give greater faith and credit to another state's judgment that is in conflict with a valid judgment of our own courts. Because we can affirm on this narrow ground, we need not reach the broader question of whether DOMA, and not the PKPA, governs to determine the effect of a Vermont custody or visitation decision based on a civil union. ¶ 29. Lisa's third ground for arguing the PKPA does not apply is that the civil union was void because both Janet and Lisa were residents of Virginia when they entered the civil union in Vermont, and, as a result, Virginia courts did not have to recognize it. We consider this argument in the next section of the opinion and reject it. ¶ 30. In summary, none of Lisa's arguments change our conclusion that this is a straightforward interstate jurisdictional dispute over custody, and the governing law fully supports the Vermont court's decision to exercise jurisdiction and refuse to follow the conflicting Virginia visitation order.