Court Opinion

ID: 9673360
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:10:39.109024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:21.747544
License: Public Domain

DONIELSON, Presiding Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
Karrie has resided exclusively with Beverly since the dissolution and they lived in Tennessee from July 19, 1982, until May 1, 1984, and since that time have lived in Florida. Karrie has not lived in Iowa for over three years. Based on these facts, I conclude the trial court’s decision not to exercise subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to section 598A.3(l)(b) (child’s connection with this state and availability of evidence in this state regarding the child’s present or future care and development) and 598A.7 (forum non-conveniens) is supported by the record.
The majority relies primarily upon In re Marriage of Olive in determining that Iowa, not Florida, should have jurisdiction. Olive contained three factors to consider in determining whether the child’s former home state keeps continuing jurisdiction, namely if: (1) court records are in such state; (2) other evidence exists in such state; and (3) one parent continues to reside in such state. While the father still lives in Iowa and the court records are in Iowa, there is no “other evidence” which exists in Iowa. All the other evidence regarding the child’s present and future development is in Tennessee and Florida. I feel that because all the evidence relevant to the child’s development, which is our primary task, is outside of Iowa that Iowa should abstain from exercising jurisdiction even though some of the Olive factors are present. A better result would be reached if Florida determined issues regarding Kar-rie’s best interests.