Court Opinion

ID: 9458120
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:43:37.940848+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:38.813863
License: Public Domain

ALDISERT, Circuit Judge,
Dissenting
The district court found that mere physical presence in the Virgin Islands was sufficient to satisfy the residency requirements of 16 V.I. Code § 291(a): “Proceedings under this chapter may be instituted by any female resident of the Virgin Islands. .. .” The court declared:
It is true that a matter of domicile, apart from Mrs. Bodin, is not really a permanent resident of the Virgin Islands. She does happen to be here within the jurisdiction physically. So for the time being, she is residing here and has been so residing for the past few months.
The majority approve this finding, but add the gloss that the district court also found an “intent to remain there for a measurable period of time.” The district court found, and it is not controverted, that at the time of trial, Mrs. Bodin had been “so residing for the past few months.” I find no reference by the district court to the critical issue of intent. Although I agree there are no chronological limitations in order to qualify as a resident, either tempo*579rary or permanent, that which distinguishes mere physical presence in a community from residence therein, is intention. An airline stewardess who intends to remain overnight in St. Thomas is not a female resident of the Virgin Islands. If she intends to stay two weeks or one month for a vacation, she still has not transferred her visitor status to that of resident.
Mrs. Bodin came to the Virgin Islands from Sweden, filed this paternity suit, and then departed. Later she returned to await trial. Thereafter, she departed again.
The Virgin Islands statute requires that the proceedings “be instituted by any female resident.” Thus, the critical issue was the status of Mrs. Bodin at the time she instituted the proceedings, not at the time of trial.
I find that the decision of the district court was predicated solely upon (1) her physical presence in the Islands, and (2) the fact that she was living there for a “few months” prior to trial. This was not sufficient to qualify Mrs. Bodin as a “female resident” under the statute without an additional finding and supportive evidence that at the time she instituted the proceeding she intended to be a resident, whether temporary or permanent.
Because I find no jurisdiction, I would vacate the judgment.