Opinion ID: 2627478
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: New Mexico's statutes permit the exercise of jurisdiction.

Text: Mikesell argues first that New Mexico cannot exercise jurisdiction because New Mexico is not Mary's home state and Alaska is. He claims that New Mexico can only have initial custody jurisdiction if it is the child's home state or was the home state within six months before the custody action began. But under New Mexico's statutes, New Mexico courts can exercise initial custody jurisdiction when New Mexico is not the home state, as long as other conditions are met. New Mexico's version of the UCCJEA provides that the New Mexico court has jurisdiction if [A] court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum under Section 207 or 208 [40-10A-207 or 40-10A-208 NMSA 1978] and: (A) the child and the child's parents, or the child and at least one parent or a person acting as a parent, have a significant connection with this state other than mere physical presence; and (B) substantial evidence is available in this state concerning the child's care, protection, training and personal relationships[.][ [18] ] Section 40-10A-207 of New Mexico's statutes corresponds to AS 25.30.360, the statutory section the superior court used here in deciding to decline jurisdiction. [19] Here, no one contests that Alaska is the child's home state. Mikesell argues that because the superior court had previously decided that Alaska was Mary's home state, New Mexico could not exercise custody jurisdiction. But whether Alaska had exclusive home state jurisdiction is irrelevant to the question whether the superior court properly declined to exercise this jurisdiction. Even though both the UCCJEA and the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act [20] (PKPA) give a preference to home state jurisdiction in custody matters, [21] both also permit a home state to decline jurisdiction. [22] Alaska declined to exercise its home state jurisdiction on inconvenient forum grounds in this case, finding that New Mexico was the more appropriate forum to decide custody. Thus, New Mexico can exercise jurisdiction if Mary and at least one of her parents have a significant connection with New Mexico and substantial evidence about her care is available in New Mexico. [23] Mikesell conceded in the superior court that both parties have a significant connection with New Mexico. In his brief before this court he did not argue that substantial evidence was unavailable in New Mexico. He has thus waived any argument that New Mexico cannot establish jurisdiction based on Mary's connection with it. [24] In any event, substantial evidence appears to be available in New Mexico that is relevant to the custody proceeding. Both of the parties lived in New Mexico with the child, extended family whom the parties planned to call as witnesses live there, and Waterman currently lives there and cares for her other child there. Mikesell cites two New Mexico cases, Trask v. Trask [25] and Nelson v. Nelson, [26] to argue that New Mexico cannot assume custody jurisdiction. Both cases are distinguishable. In neither case did a home state decline jurisdiction and find that New Mexico was the more appropriate forum to determine custody. In addition, the cases involved modification jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), not initial jurisdiction under the UCCJEA. [27] Mikesell suggests that New Mexico cannot have significant connection jurisdiction because Mary has not lived in New Mexico recently except for summers with her mother. Although the UCCJA required that substantial evidence for purposes of establishing initial jurisdiction be about the child's present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships, [28] the UCCJEA does not limit evidence to present or future care. [29] According to a comment to the UCCJEA, [t]he jurisdictional determination should be made by determining whether there is sufficient evidence in the State for the court to make an informed custody determination. That evidence might relate to the past as well as to the `present or future.' [30] Mikesell also argues that the superior court order was contrary to this court's opinion in Atkins v. Vigil. [31] In Atkins, the superior court decided that it did not have jurisdiction to hear a custody dispute even though Alaska was the child's recent home state because a California guardianship proceeding, which had been filed before the Alaska custody action, preempted Alaska's jurisdiction. [32] We reversed because the UCCJEA and the PKPA give a preference to a child's home state in exercising jurisdiction. [33] But Atkins is silent about jurisdiction when the home state declines jurisdiction because it is an inconvenient forum, as it did here. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that New Mexico may properly exercise custody jurisdiction in this case.