Court Opinion

ID: 8040996
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 03:32:27.783047+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:37:18.935112
License: Public Domain

Krivosha, C.J.,
dissenting.
I regret that I must dissent in this case. I believe that the majority has misread and misapplied the provisions of the Nebraska Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 43-1201 et seq. (Cum. Supp. 1982), and as a result has effectively repealed the act.
As noted by the majority, the act was promulgated by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. An examination of its notes to the act are extremely helpful in understanding the intent and purpose of the act. (See Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, Commissioners’ Note, 9 U.L.A. 151 (1979).)
Contrary to the suggestion made by the majority, the ‘‘most significant” purpose of the act as applied to the present case is not § 43-1201(1) (c) but, rather, a number of other items, including § 43-1201(1) (b), (f), and (g), which provide as follows: ‘‘(b) Promote cooperation with the courts of other states to the end that a custody decree is rendered in that state which can best decide the case in the interest of the child . . . (f) Avoid relitigation of custody decisions of other states in this state when feasible; (g) Facilitate the enforcement of custody decrees of other states.” In my view we have chosen to ignore both *653the direct language of the act as well as the obvious purpose. See § 43-1201.
The Commissioners’ Prefatory Note further explains the purpose of the act, noting at 111, 113-14: “There is 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. . . .
“. . . Generally speaking, there has been a tendency to over-emphasize the need for fluidity and modifiability of custody decrees at the expense of the equal (if not greater) need, from the standpoint of the child, for stability of custody decisions once made. . . .
“Under this state of the law the courts of the various states have acted in isolation and at times in competition with each other; often with disastrous consequences. A court of one state may have awarded custody to the mother while another state decreed simultaneously that the child must go to the father. [Citations omitted.] In situations like this the litigants do not know which court to obey. They may face punishment for contempt of court and perhaps criminal charges for child stealing in one state when complying with the decree of the other. Also, a custody decree made in one state one year is often overturned in another jurisdiction the next year or some years later and the child is handed over to another family, to be repeated as long as the feud continues. [Citations omitted.]
“To remedy this intolerable state of affairs where self-help and the rule of ‘seize-and-run’ prevail rather than the orderly processes of the law, uniform legislation has been urged in recent years to bring about a fair measure of interstate stability in custody awards. ...”
“The Act is designed to bring some semblance of *654order into the existing chaos. ... It provides for the recognition and enforcement of out-of-state custody-decrees in many instances. See Sections 13 and 15. Jurisdiction to modify decrees of other states is limited by giving a jurisdictional preference to the prior court under certain conditions. See Section 14.”
Obviously, the real purpose of the act was to avoid the very conflict which the majority opinion in this case has now created. Rather than limiting jurisdiction and reducing chaos, we have increased jurisdiction and enlarged chaos.
As an example, the majority opinion suggests that there is serious doubt as to whether the 1982 Mississippi judgment modifying the 1980 decree was a final order, such that we might be bound to enforce that decree under the act. With that conclusion I agree. I conclude, however, that because the Mississippi judgment was not a final order but, rather, a pending order, under the provisions of § 43-1206 we are required to decline jurisdiction in this case until a final order has been entered. See § 43-1206(1). That is all we should do in this case. By filing a petition for rehearing in Mississippi, Mrs. Mace has chosen to submit her grievance to the Mississippi court. She should not be permitted, on the one hand, to seek relief from the Mississippi court while, on the other hand, contending that the court is without jurisdiction, and its orders ignored.
There is no question that there is presently pending, and was at the time that the District Court for Douglas County, Nebraska, exercised its jurisdiction, a petition proceeding concerning the custody of a child in another state, thereby invoking the provisions of § 43-1206. The Commissioners’ Note to § 6 specifically .provides that this conflict is to be avoided. It reads at 134-35: ‘‘Because of the havoc wreaked by simultaneous and competitive jurisdiction which has been described in the Prefatory Note, this section seeks to avoid jurisdictional conflict with all feasible means, including novel methods. *655Courts are expected to take an active part under this section in seeking out information about custody proceedings concerning the same child pending in other states. In a proper case jurisdiction is yielded to the other state either under this section or under section 7. Both sections must be read together.
“While jurisdiction need not be yielded under subsection (a) if the other court would not have jurisdiction under the criteria of this Act, the policy against simultaneous custody proceedings is so strong that it might in a particular situation be appropriate to leave the case to the other court even under such circumstances. . . .
“Once a custody decree has been rendered in one state, jurisdiction is determined by sections 8 and 14.’’
While § 8 is not applicable in this case, § 14 clearly covers the situation. The Commissioners’ Note makes that fact abundantly clear. It reads in part at 154: “Courts which render a custody decree normally retain continuing jurisdiction to modify the decree under local law. Courts in other states have in the past often assumed jurisdiction to modify the out-of-state decree themselves without regard to the preexisting jurisdiction of the other state. [Citation omitted.] In order to achieve greater stability of custody arrangements and avoid forum shopping, subsection (a) declares that other states will defer to the continuing jurisdiction of the court of another state as long as that state has jurisdiction under the standards of this Act. In other words, all petitions for modification are to be addressed to the prior state if that state has sufficient contact with the case to satisfy section 3. The fact that the court had previously considered the case may be one factor favoring its continued jurisdiction. If, however, all the persons involved have moved away or the contact with the state has otherwise become slight, modifi*656cation jurisdiction would shift elsewhere. [Citation omitted.] ”
Moreover, the example given in the Commissioners’ Note is relevant to this case. The note reads at 154: “For example, if custody was awarded to the father in state 1 where he continued to live with the children for two years and thereafter his wife kept the children in state 2 for 6% months (3^ months beyond her visitation privileges) with or without permission of the husband, state 1 has preferred jurisdiction to modify the decree despite the fact that state 2 has in the meantime become the ‘home state’ of the child. If, however, the father also moved away from state 1, that state loses modification jurisdiction interstate, whether or not its jurisdiction continues under local law. . . . Also, if the father in the same case continued to live in state 1, but let his wife keep the children for several years without asserting his custody rights and without visits of the children in state 1, modification jurisdiction of state 1 would cease.”
In the instant case, while the mother was awarded custody of the children, she was not authorized to remove the children from the jurisdiction of the Mississippi court. Even if the father consented to the move, a fact which is apparently disputed, the Mississippi court could not be divested of its continuing interest in or jurisdiction over the children. Furthermore, the father did not abandon the children nor fail to exercise his visitation rights. The children continued to return to Mississippi to visit with the father.
In the instant case the evidence discloses that while Nebraska has developed contacts with the children, Mississippi has not lost the contacts. It is in Mississippi where the father lives and where the children regularly visit; it is in Mississippi where the continuing child support judgment rests and from where the children receive at least a portion of their support; it is in Mississippi where the child *657support order must be enforced if the father fails to pay; and it is in Mississippi where Mrs. Mace has sought the court to reconsider its actions and grant her relief. To therefore suggest that Mississippi no longer has any significant interest in this matter is to ignore the facts.
The majority suggests that neither § 43-1206 nor § 43-1214 applies because Mississippi had not, at the time this action was commenced, adopted the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. But that is not the sole criterion under the act. It must either assume jurisdiction under statutory provisions substantially in accordance with the act or enter its decree under factual circumstances meeting the jurisdictional standards substantially similar to the act. As the Commissioners’ Note indicates, this does not require that the initial jurisdiction remain the “home state,” but only that it retain sufficient interest in the case.
The Commissioners’ Note at 151 to § 13 of the act emphasizes this point.
“This section and sections 14 and 15 are the key provisions which guarantee a great measure of security and stability of environment to the ‘interstate child’ by discouraging relitigations in other states. [Citations omitted.]
“Although the full faith and credit clause may perhaps not require the recognition of out-of-state custody decrees, the states are free to recognize and enforce them. See Restatement of the Law Second, Conflict of Laws, Proposed Official Draft, section 109 (1967), and see the Prefatory Note, supra. This section declares as a matter of state law, that custody decrees of sister states will be recognized and enforced. Recognition and enforcement is mandatory if the state in which the prior decree was rendered 1) has adopted this Act, 2) has statutory jurisdictional requirements substantially like this Act, or 3) would have had jurisdiction under the facts of the *658case if this Act had been the law in that state. [Citation omitted.]
“ ‘Jurisdiction’ or ‘jurisdictional standards’ under this section refers to the requirements of section 3 in the case of initial decrees and to the requirements of sections 3 and 14 in the case of modification decrees.”
The ‘‘home state” concept of § 43-1203 is relevant only when the initial state has lost jurisdiction by reason of both parties leaving the original state or by reason of some deliberate action taken by one of the parties which relieves the original state of its jurisdiction.
Our decision in this case has brought about exactly all of the things which the adoption of the act sought to eliminate. We now have two decrees in two different jurisdictions involving the custody of the children, neither of which apparently can be enforced outside the jurisdiction in which the decree was entered. Moreover, because the Mississippi court has granted the father custody, it has terminated child support. Nebraska, under this act, cannot impose child support, and now the children must be without child support. Furthermore, should the wife ever go into Mississippi for the purpose of attempting to seek a child support order, she will likely be held in contempt of court and in violation of an existing court decree. How we suggest that all of this is in the best interests of the children is difficult to imagine.
One further aspect of the majority opinion requires comment. The majority states that, before we are required to recognize the Mississippi decree in any event, we must consider whether the Mississippi court acted in the best interests of the child when it assumed jurisdiction. The majority then reasons that Mississippi did not act in the child’s best interests when it granted custody to the father, a married medical student with a stable home, and took custody away from the mother, whom the evi*659dence discloses had permitted a male to live with her and the children during a part of 1980. How we reach that conclusion in view of our recent decisions in Hinz v. Hinz, ante p. 335, 338 N.W.2d 442 (1983); Hicks v. Hicks, 214 Neb. 588, 334 N.W.2d 807 (1983); and Krueger v. Krueger, 211 Neb. 568, 319 N.W.2d 445 (1982), is difficult to follow.
It appears to me that what we have attempted to do in this case is to find justification for placing custody of the children with the mother, notwithstanding the order of a court having jurisdiction over the parties. In order to accomplish that end we have had, therefore, to ignore our own case law and the statutes involved. Apparently, we believe we can determine “best interest” better than the Mississippi court can. Would we wish other jurisdictions to so lightly consider our decrees? I fear that we have created untold difficulty by our action here, and it will not take very long for us to wish we had not reached the conclusion we have reached. The trial court should have required the parties to return to Mississippi where the entire matter could be resolved. I would have so held.
Caporale, J., joins in this dissent.